Board Resolution No. 126/2026

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 126/2026
SUBJECT: BOARD OF DIRECTORS - APPEAL FOR REVOCATION AGAINST BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 89/2026 WHICH MODIFIES THE REGULATION ON LEGAL RESERVES FOR FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION ENTITIES

SEEN:
The Political Constitution of the State of February 7, 2009.
Law No. 1670 of October 31, 1995, of the Central Bank of Bolivia (BCB) and its modifications.
Law No. 2341 of April 23, 2002, on Administrative Procedure.
Law No. 393 of August 21, 2013, on Financial Services and its modifications.
Supreme Decree No. 27113 of July 23, 2003, which regulates Law No. 2341.
The Regulation on Legal Reserves for Financial Intermediation Entities approved by Board Resolution No. 76/2022 of August 26, 2022 and its modifications.
Board Resolution No. 89/2026 of June 26, 2026, which approves modifications to articles 18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 41, 42 and the First Transitory Provision of the Regulation on Legal Reserves for Financial Intermediation Entities.
The Appeal for Revocation filed by La Promotora Financial Entity for Housing on July 28, 2026.
The Statute of the BCB approved by Board Resolution No. 85/2026 of June 23, 2026.
The report BCB-GEF-SASF-DAN-INF-2026-18 of August 24, 2026, from the Financial Entities Management (GEF).
The report BCB-GAL-SANO-DLBCI-INF-2026-220 of August 24, 2026, from the Legal Affairs Management (GAL).

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
//2. B.R. No. 126/2026

CONSIDERING:
That the Political Constitution of the State in its articles 327 and 328 establishes that the BCB is a public law institution, with legal personality and its own assets, and that within the framework of the State's economic policy, it is the function of the BCB to maintain the stability of the internal purchasing power of the currency, to contribute to economic and social development; and it has as attributes, in coordination with the economic policy determined by the Executive Branch, in addition to those indicated by law, to determine and execute monetary policy, execute exchange rate policy, regulate the payment system, authorize the issuance of currency and administer international reserves.

That Law No. 1670 in its articles 1, 2 and 3 provides that the BCB is the only monetary and exchange authority of the country, with administrative, technical and financial competence and specialized normative powers of general application. Its object is to procure the stability of the internal purchasing power of the national currency. The BCB will formulate policies of general application in monetary, exchange and payment system matters for the fulfillment of its object.

That said Law, in its article 7 establishes that the BCB may establish legal reserves of mandatory compliance by Banks and financial intermediation entities (EIF). Their composition, amount, method of calculation, characteristics and remuneration, will be established by the Board of the Bank, by absolute majority of votes. The control and supervision of the legal reserve will correspond to the Financial System Supervision Authority (ASFI).

That in its articles 30, 37 and 39, Law No. 1670 provides that all entities of the financial intermediation system and financial services, whose operation is authorized by the ASFI, are subject to the normative competence of the BCB; and that the BCB will be the depositary of the liquid reserves intended to cover the legal reserve and attend the payment system and other operations with the BCB of the financial intermediation entities subject to the authorization and control of the ASFI; and that the matured obligations of banks and financial entities with the BCB, may be collected through debits to the reserve account and others that the debtor entity maintains at the BCB, without prejudice to using other forms of recovery of such obligations.

That in articles 44 and 54 subsections a), i) and o) Law No. 1670 provides that the highest authority of the BCB is its Board of Directors, which is responsible for defining its policies, specialized normative rules of general application and internal rules; as well as establishing administrative, operational and financial strategies of the Issuer Entity, approving their respective short and medium-term programs. Likewise, it establishes that the Board has the attributes to issue norms and adopt general decisions that would be necessary for the BCB to fulfill the functions, competencies and powers assigned to it by the Law; fix and regulate the administration of the legal reserve to which banks and other financial entities must be subject, disposing measures for its compliance; as well as approve, modify and interpret the Statute and Regulations of the BCB by two-thirds of the votes of all its members, without the need for an additional administrative act.

That article 55 of the aforementioned Law states that Board Resolutions of the BCB may be challenged by any natural or legal person or competent organ of the State by filing an appeal for revocation with devolutive effect, before the same Board within a period of thirty (30) days from the date on which the BCB made the Resolution known to the interested or affected persons. The Board must pronounce itself within twenty (20) days following the filing of the appeal for revocation. If the Board does not pronounce itself within the period, the challenge will be understood as denied on the date of expiration of the period.

That Law No. 2341 in subsection a) of paragraph 1 of article 20 provides that if the period is indicated in days, only administrative business days will be counted; while in article 61, it determines that the administrative resources provided for in this Law will be resolved by confirming or revoking the challenged resolution in whole or in part, or in its case, dismissing the appeal if it was filed out of term, did not meet the formalities expressly indicated in applicable provisions or if it did not meet the requirement of standing.

That the Regulation to the Law of Administrative Procedure in its article 121 establishes the forms of resolution of appeals for revocation.

That in paragraph 1 of its article 426 of Law No. 393, it provides that EIFs must ensure that at all times and under different alternative scenarios, they have adequate levels of liquidity and sufficient resources to guarantee the continuity of operations and the timely attention of their obligations, considering the complexity and volume of their operations and the risk profile they are assuming.

That the Statute of the BCB, in numerals 1 and 3 of article 6 and numerals 1, 6, 22 and 43 of article 11, determines that the BCB has normative and technical competence and that its Board has as attributes: approve general decisions and issue the norms that are necessary for the BCB to fulfill the functions, competencies and powers assigned to it by the Law; establish by absolute majority of votes, legal reserves of mandatory compliance by financial intermediation entities and approve their composition, amount, calculation, characteristics, forms of administration, custody and remuneration; approve, modify and interpret the Statute and Regulations of the BCB; and resolve appeals for revocation, within the legal periods provided.

CONSIDERING:
That by Board Resolution No. 89/2026, the Highest Authority of the BCB resolved to approve modifications to articles 18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 41, 42 and the First Transitory Provision of the Regulation on Legal Reserves for Financial Intermediation Entities.

That with the formalities and within the period established in article 55 of Law No. 1670 and under the shelter of the principle of informalism enshrined in Law No. 2341, La Promotora Financial Entity for Housing (La Promotora EFV) presents an Appeal for Revocation against article 31 (CPVIS I Fund), article 33 (CPVIS III Fund) and article 42 (CPRO Fund) of the Regulation on Legal Reserves for Financial Intermediation Entities modified by Board Resolution No. 89/2026, requesting to resolve the appeal, declaring the revocation of the modifications and incorporations introduced by Board Resolution No. 89/2026 to articles 31, 33 and 42 of the Regulation on Legal Reserves for Financial Intermediation Entities, leaving without legal effect the obligation of gradual and advance repayment fixed from July 15, 2026 and ordering in an express manner the validity of the original deadlines for maturity and consolidated repayment until September 30, 2026 for the CPVIS II and CPVIS III Funds and until December 30, 2026 for the CPRO Fund. Likewise, within the framework of article 59 of Law No. 2341, it requests the suspension of the effects of the challenged act as a precautionary measure, freezing any obligation of gradual or advance repayment against the appellant, ordering the paralysis and abstention from making new automatic debits or applying mechanisms of forced exchange compensation.

That having reviewed the arguments of the appellant and considering the reports BCB-GEF-SASF-DAN-INF-2026-18 from the GEF and BCB-GAL-SANO-DLBCI-INF-2026-220 from the GAL, and the information and criteria raised in the Board meeting, it is appropriate to manifest the following:

1. Board Resolution No. 89/2026 has been approved in accordance with the mandate and constitutional attributes provided for in articles 327 and 328 of the Political Constitution of the State and the object, specialized normative competence and functions of the BCB contained in articles 1, 2, 3, 7, 30 and 37 of Law No. 1670, within whose framework the Issuer Entity is the only monetary and exchange authority of the country, with technical competence and specialized normative powers of general application. The modifications to articles 31, 33 and 42 of the Regulation on Legal Reserves for Financial Intermediation Entities are framed in the monetary policy strategy established by the BCB in the context of the transition to a new monetary policy framework and exchange rate flexibility announced since November 2025.

2. The CPVIS II, CPVIS III and CPRO Funds were constituted by the BCB in the years 2018, 2019 and 2022, from the reduction of the legal reserve and voluntary contributions of the EIFs. In the case of the CPVIS II and CPRO Funds, with the objective of injecting liquidity into the financial system to dynamize economic activity and strengthen international reserves. According to the Monetary Program and the process of modernization of the monetary policy framework and the abandonment of the fixed exchange rate regime, the BCB through modifications to the Regulation on Legal Reserves for Financial Intermediation Entities disposed of the gradual return of these funds, subject to a schedule based on the stratification of dollar deposits in the banking system.

3. Articles 31, 33 and 42 of the Regulation on Legal Reserves for Financial Intermediation Entities contemplate the return of the funds from July 2026 to December 2028 and the consequent cancellation of the MN credits guaranteed with said resources, taking into account that the original maturity of these funds was postponed on several occasions, the last being the referred return schedule considering that the total maturity could have implied the need for several financial entities to cancel high amounts in a reduced or single period.

4. In this context, from the review and comparison of the records that run in the proceedings, before the appeal filed for alleged infringement or injury to subjective rights and legitimate interests of the appellant entity, alleging that the BCB imposed a programmed gradual restitution from July 15, 2026 through the liquidation of loans via automatic debit or forced exchange compensation, unilaterally cutting the maturity period that was consolidated until September 30 and December 31, 2026 respectively, breaking the horizon of stability and extinguishing the original return period agreed upon; it is appropriate to examine the arguments exposed by the appellant and verify if the alleged extremes are evident and legally supported, in order to determine if it corresponds to revoke or maintain the challenged determination.

a) Regarding the alleged violation of the principle of legal security and legitimate trust by the unilateral modification of the deadlines of the CPVIS II, CPVIS III and CPRO Funds

The appellant maintains that Board Resolution No. 079/2025 and the BCB's Monetary Program established fixed and immovable deadlines for the return and payment of liquidity loans of the CPVIS II and CPVIS III Funds (September 30, 2026) and of the CPRO Fund (December 30, 2026), so that, the unilateral substitution of said deadlines by a gradual return scheme from July 15, 2026 (via automatic debit or forced exchange compensation in foreign currency) destroys the legitimate expectations created by the Issuer Entity itself, altering the entity's balance sheet structure and affecting its financial projection.

The Political Constitution of the State attributes to the BCB the function of maintaining the stability of the internal purchasing power of the currency, to contribute to economic and social development, being exclusive competence to determine and execute monetary policy and execute exchange rate policy, in coordination with the economic policy determined by the Executive Branch, within whose framework the normative provisions issued by the Issuer Entity in matters of legal reserve and liquidity loans are of technical-financial public interest, which implies that their parameters and conditions are subject to macroeconomic dynamics and to the regulation of the money mass based on the ends of the State itself.

The BCB issues norms whose provisions do not become an "acquired right" to their inalterability or "petrification" in time, more so when their modification responds to public interest and the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate, to procure their adaptation to the dynamism of the economy and to the needs derived from it, without undermining the principles, rights and constitutional guarantees. Consequently, it must be clear that the specialized norm approved by the Issuer Entity must be oriented to the satisfaction of the general interest, which prevails over private interests, within the framework and limits established by the Constitution and the legal order.

In this context, the principle of legitimate trust does not operate as a shield of normative immutability when the BCB acts within the framework of its constitutional attributes of absorption or regulation of liquidity. The modification of articles 31, 33 and 42 responds to the need to preserve monetary equilibrium, without this constituting arbitrariness, but the legitimate exercise of regulatory power in safeguarding the common good. This measure is supported by the Monetary Program and the transition to the flexible exchange rate regime, according to the economic policy determined by the Executive Branch, which do not constitute unpredictable measures for the administrators, since they were announced and disseminated, allowing the EIFs to have information to evaluate the context and adopt timely liquidity management decisions in accordance with the announced conditions.

Regarding the alleged violation of the principle of legal security, which guarantees that the action of the Public Administration develops with full submission to the law, within the scope of legally attributed competencies and through duly motivated acts, it must be kept in mind that this does not suppose or entail the immutability of the legal order nor grants the administrators a right to demand the indefinite permanence of certain regulatory conditions. In sectors subject to intense public regulation, such as the financial and monetary sector, legal security coexists with the power of the competent authority to modify general norms when this is necessary for the protection of public interest and the fulfillment of legally assigned ends, such as safeguarding the liquidity of the financial system under macroprudential guidelines.

For these considerations, the establishment of a return schedule for the CPVIS II, CPVIS III and CPRO Funds responds to the purpose of preserving the orientation of monetary policy and guaranteeing an orderly closure of the measure, so it does not constitute a deviation of power nor entails a limitation or restriction of fundamental rights.

In that framework, it is not observed that the establishment of said schedule violates the principles of legal security and legitimate trust, nor that it constitutes an illegal and unilateral alteration of the previously established deadlines, which have been modified on several occasions, as long as it responds to the exercise of a legitimate regulatory power and is linked to the public purpose that supports the measure.

b) Regarding the alleged non-observance of the principle of legal reservation and the principle of proportionality

The appellant points out that by the principle of legal reservation, the norms issued by the BCB must be subordinate to the Constitution and the laws, however, in the present case, they would be openly contrary to the principle of non-retroactivity and proportionality, the latter because it is absolutely burdensome, since the alteration of the established deadlines generates a situation of uncertainty in the planning of liability amortization and the placement of its assets.

The principle of legal reservation constitutes a guarantee against possible arbitrary limitations, since it supposes in the administrative field that the action of the Administration proceeds from the Law, aspect that has been widely founded and motivated in the present case, given that the modification of the Regulation on Legal Reserves for Financial Intermediation Entities is framed in the constitutional attribution of the BCB to determine and execute monetary policy and execute exchange rate policy, being the function of the Issuer Entity according to Law No. 1670, to establish legal reserves of mandatory compliance by banks and EIFs, being the attribute of its Board to regulate the operational conditions, rates and deadlines of loans guaranteed with reserve funds.

Likewise, in observance of the principle of proportionality, a schedule has been established that modifies the immediate restitution to 100% of the resources on the dates that the appellant requests to be maintained today, rather it entails the extension of the deadline provided for the closure of the Funds until December 2028, thus avoiding the concentrated cancellation of all loans, reducing the liquidity tension that would have represented a single payment, facilitating the programming of cash flows and granting the EIFs a transition period to adapt their funding structure.

Regarding the argument concerning the principle of non-retroactivity, it is noted that Board Resolution No. 89/2026 does not modify retroactively (ex tunc) extinguished liquidations nor affects rights consolidated in the past. Its application governs towards the future (ex nunc) on the unexpired effects of the existing liquidity facilities. In regulatory administrative law, the fixing of deadlines for contingent liquidity operations is subject to the normative provisions in force at the moment of the exigibility of the service. When the regulatory framework is modified before the expiration of the originally projected period, the norm acts on situations in progress of development and of public order, which does not constitute a violation of article 123 of the Political Constitution of the State.

For these considerations, the alleged violation of the principles of legal reservation, non-retroactivity and proportionality is not evident, since the challenged measures are supported in the applicable constitutional and legal framework and respond to a legitimate purpose of monetary and exchange policy, entailing the extension of the return period and by the gradualness of the schedule, the liquidity tensions are reduced.

BOARD
//9. B.R. No. 126/2026 represents payment on single dates. Consequently, the arguments formulated by the appellant regarding these points are refuted. c) With respect to the alleged excess of administrative discretion to the detriment of the Social Interest Housing Portfolio.
The appellant asserts that the BCB's regulatory power is not absolute and that Board Resolution No. 89/2026 incurs in a deviation of power by failing to meet the conditions of validity due to the impact on the legitimate purpose and the Social Function of Law No. 393, stating that, although financial stability is a legitimate objective, the measure generates illiquidity and temporary mismatch, preventing it from meeting its mandatory placement goals for Social Interest Housing Credits, contravening the social mandate of Law No. 393 and infringing on its rights to commerce and private property recognized in articles 47 and 56 of the Political Constitution of the State. The appellant considers that the modification to article 42 of the Regulation on Legal Reserve for Financial Intermediation Entities deprives it in advance of the financial support of the CPRO Fund, whose exclusive object is the increase of the social housing portfolio, putting at risk the viability and liquidity coefficient of small financial entities, rendering the measure disproportionate. Pursuant to Law No. 393 on Financial Services, the fulfillment of credit placement goals for Social Interest Housing is a service responsibility of the balance sheet of each FIF, which must be supported by the ordinary collection of public deposits (liabilities with the public) and own capital. To seek to back 20 or 30-year credit placements with temporary liquidity facilities from the Issuing Entity subject to monetary regulation is a decision specific to the entity regarding its risk management, the responsibility for which is not attributable to nor transferable to the BCB. The liquidity loans guaranteed by the CPRO Fund provided for in article 42 of the Regulation on Legal Reserve for Financial Intermediation Entities are extraordinary, contingent, and temporary mechanisms for systemic liquidity management, and in no way constitute a permanent source of resources nor determine that they must be maintained throughout the validity of the financed credits. The transitory nature of these instruments is evidenced by the fact that from their creation they had defined maturity dates, subsequently extended and adjusted based on the economic and liquidity conditions of the system. The extensions temporarily expanded the availability of resources, but did not modify their nature nor

BOARD
//10. B.R. No. 126/2026 convert them into a permanent source of funding for FIFs, much less into an acquired right on their part, which would imply the unalterability of the regulations governing them.
The cancellation of credits in local currency guaranteed with resources from the CPVIS and CPRO Funds also implies the return of resources in foreign currency to the FIFs, that is, that this represents a replacement of the lent resources by the return of the resources constituted in said Funds. In the case of insufficiency of resources in an FIF for the payment of BCB credits, the execution of the guarantee, corresponding to participations in the Funds, also does not represent a decrease in the entity's liquidity.
Consequently, no financial or operational grievance attributable to the challenged measure is evident that implies an indirect confiscation of returns, an excessive exchange cost, or an injury to the assets of the FIFs; the alleged patrimonial impact is not configured, nor is any violation of the social interest housing regime emerging from Law No. 393 observed, leaving the arguments formulated by the appellant regarding this point refuted. d) Regarding the argument of own act and the alleged threat of violation of due process.
The appellant maintains that administrative actions must adhere to good faith and respect for own acts, preventing the Issuing Entity from unilaterally modifying previous decisions (Board Resolution No. 079/2025) that granted the entity a defined legal position and on which it planned its financial operations, asserting that the BCB takes advantage of its position of authority to alter the conditions of liquidity loans in an untimely manner, seeking an early collection that contravenes the regulatory certainty previously generated.
The doctrine of own acts (venire contra factum proprium) governs primarily in the realm of private law contractual relations, it not being legally feasible that its observance petrifies or paralyzes the regulatory power of the BCB, whose regulatory provisions in monetary, exchange, and legal reserve matters respond to the public interest and not to contractual or particular interests. Accepting that a previous regulation (Board Resolution No. 079/2025) generates an "acquired right" or an "immutable legal position" in favor of a regulated entity would mean subordinating the constitutional mandate to safeguard the stability of the internal purchasing power of the currency to the particular interests of an FIF.

BOARD
//11. B.R. No. 126/2026
The BCB acts as the sole monetary and exchange authority, pursuant to the Political Constitution of the State and Law 1670 and not as an actor with a "dominant position". The timely update of liquidity parameters responds to economic dynamics and seeks to protect the collective interest of the population, not the detriment of the appellant.
According to the Regulation on Legal Reserve for Financial Intermediation Entities, the operation of loans guaranteed with the CPVIS II, CPVIS III, and CPRO Funds is carried out through the accounts that the FIFs maintain at the BCB. Through these accounts, both the disbursements and the cancellation of the loans were effected. Specifically, articles 31, 33, and 42 of the Regulation established the conditions for the gradual cancellation of the loans and the return of participations through debits and credits in current and reserve accounts in local and foreign currency, as applicable. In this framework, the debits carried out according to the schedule do not constitute a recently implemented measure nor a different operational mechanism than that provided for in these operations, but rather the regular execution of operations permitted in the aforementioned Regulation. In correspondence with the cancellation of the loans, the return of the FIFs' participations in the funds in foreign currency was proceeded with, respecting the sequence established normatively. This provision does not constitute a simple payment modality, but a legal prerogative of direct execution that confers on the issuing entity a reinforced power for the immediate recovery of credits within the financial system. The automatic debit does not constitute a discretionary act nor an exceptional measure, but an expression of the principle of executive self-protection recognized to the BCB within the strictly delimited scope of the law. This principle implies the faculty of the Public Administration, in the cases expressly enabled by the legal order, to directly execute its decisions without prior intervention of judicial bodies, when this has been provided for by a norm with legal rank. On the other hand, the appellant argues that since it involves substantial modifications to the conditions and terms of liquidity loans without its consent, the BCB cannot unilaterally resolve the controversy, corresponding in its case to resort to the competent jurisdiction. Likewise, it asserts that imposing the alteration of terms and its executive collection without consensus is equivalent to administering justice by one's own hand, acting simultaneously as judge and party.

BOARD
//12. B.R. No. 126/2026
Resorting to the ordinary civil jurisdiction to apply its reserve and liquidity norms, or that the BCB is administering justice by "own hand", is legally inadmissible insofar as pursuant to article 32 of Law No. 2341, administrative acts of public entities enjoy a presumption of legality and executivity (administrative self-protection), for which reason, it does not require resorting to an ordinary judge to execute and enforce regulatory provisions of public order. Requiring the judicial route or the prior "consent" of the regulated party to modify a norm would nullify the State's capacity for timely response to the detriment of the public purpose pursued by the regulation. For the considerations previously stated, the appellant's allegations regarding the alleged violation of the principles of good faith, respect for own acts, and regulatory certainty are refuted, inasmuch as the modification of the Regulation on Legal Reserve for Financial Intermediation Entities responds to a legitimate purpose and does not constitute an arbitrary or untimely exercise of the Issuing Entity's attributions. Consequently, it is not observed that the challenged measure implies an illegitimate disregard of a consolidated legal situation nor an affectation of the legitimate trust of the appellant entity in the terms alleged. e) Request for immediate suspension of the effects and execution of Board Resolution No. 89/2026 Regarding the request for suspension of the application of the challenged Regulation, filed under article 59 of Law No. 2341, it corresponds to state that such provision is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch as article 55 of Law No. 1670 expressly establishes that the revocation appeal against Board resolutions of the BCB is filed with devolutive effect. Consequently, the filing of the appeal does not suspend the execution or application of the challenged resolution, for which reason the inadmissibility of the request must be declared. That by the arguments exposed above, Board Resolution No. 89/2026 does not contravene the current legal framework and falls within the mandate, object, attributions, faculties, and functions of the BCB provided for in the Political Constitution of the State and Law No. 1670. That in virtue of article 55 of Law No. 1670, the Board of the BCB is empowered to resolve the Revocation Appeal filed by La Promotora Entidad Financiera de Vivienda.

BOARD
//13. B.R. No. 126/2026
THEREFORE,
THE BOARD OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF BOLIVIA,
RESOLVES:
Article 1.- Deny the Revocation Appeal filed on July 28, 2026 by La Promotora Entidad Financiera de Vivienda, against articles 31, 33, and 42 of the Regulation on Legal Reserve for Financial Intermediation Entities modified by Board Resolution No. 89/2026 of June 26, 2026, declaring inadmissible the request for suspension of its effects and execution.
Article 2.- The Legal Affairs Department is tasked with notifying this resolution to the appellant at its procedural address and by institutional email, inasmuch as the appellant has expressly and voluntarily indicated such means of notification.
La Paz, August 25, 2026
EDO. DAVID IVÁN ESPINOZA TORRICO, Claudia Haydee Pacheco Ayala, Dennise Sussan Martin Alarcón, Alvaro Alfonso Romero Villavicencio.